 |
 |
Re: Objectivism and Language Poetry. Few of the extremely varied crew that's identified with LANGUAGE review, as much (perhaps more) an advertizing ploy than a coherent group, owe anything much to the objectivists, but they certainly have been eager to coopt the common ancestors of a great deal of contemporary poetry, so as to create the impression that they represent the only true line of descent. How can these manoeuvres of the present tarnish the past? I have a house guest who identifies herself as a Language poet. She was surprised that Jackson MacLow wrote the blurb for one of my books. Jackson wasn't a Language poet, though he didn't fight cooptationand its publicity value and was guardedly friendly with many of them. It's pretty sad that he's been forced into a box as predecessor, obscuring the extraordinary range of his practice. But such is life. Mark At 11:51 AM 1/1/2008, you wrote: >It's possible, of course, that the Language poets misread the objectivists. >Also, there is a lot of distance between Reznikoff & Zukofsky. > >jd > > >On Jan 1, 2008 10:42 AM, Barry Alpert <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > > That's interesting. I would have never guessed. Isn't Objectivism > > tarnished for you by its major presence for language poetry? > > > > Barry Alpert > > > >-- >Joseph Duemer >Professor of Humanities >Clarkson University >[sharpsand.net]